hi all,
I don't think the httprange14 situation is so bad that we have to consider
revolutionary proposals but just in case it gets so bad, I have an idea based
on Jenis idea (http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/170) that I like:
-Remove any restriction on what a URL with 200 statuscode denotes per se
-Move httprange14 into RDF semantics: If a URL with 200 statuscode is used in
a triple, it denotes what it accesses. I guess this does not have to be part
of the formalism.
-Extend the RDF abstract syntax and semantics with a way to express if the
content or the sense of a URL is meant in a triple. Old style triples
stay valid but will be interpreted with the httprange14-rule above. This would
also be an opportunity to introduce n-tuples / n-ary relations ;-)
Regards,
Michael Brunnbauer
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 01:22:58PM +0200, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
>
> Hello Michiel,
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:20:04PM +0200, Michiel de Jong wrote:
> > i think Jeni's proposal is valid, and 303s and hash uri rule are not.
>
> I think a cleaner way would have been to introduce a content and a sense
> function for URLs and a way so specify which one should be applied in a
> statement to get the property argument. This way we would not have several
> properties where we really mean *one* property. But to specify which function
> should be applied requires additional elements which do not fit into the
> RDF abstract syntax.
>
> > > In the case of properties like dcterms:subject, we need four different
> > > properties.
> >
> > that was also my second thought.
> [...]
> > no. if a vocabulary has not already thought about which one of the 4
> > options a certain property means, then it was broken.
>
> You just conceded that with dcterms:subject there are 4 valid options
> and not a single one. So you think the dcterms vocabulary is "broken" because
> it does not include the three variants of dcterms:subject that somehow relate
> to the content of a URL ? Would not the URL have to be a typed literal in
> this case ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Brunnbauer
>
> --
> ++ Michael Brunnbauer
> ++ netEstate GmbH
> ++ Geisenhausener StraÃe 11a
> ++ 81379 MÃ¼nchen
> ++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
> ++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
> ++ E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
> ++ http://www.netestate.de/
> ++
> ++ Sitz: MÃ¼nchen, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B MÃ¼nchen)
> ++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
> ++ GeschÃ¤ftsfÃ¼hrer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
> ++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
--
++ Michael Brunnbauer
++ netEstate GmbH
++ Geisenhausener StraÃe 11a
++ 81379 MÃ¼nchen
++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
++ E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
++ http://www.netestate.de/
++
++ Sitz: MÃ¼nchen, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B MÃ¼nchen)
++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++ GeschÃ¤ftsfÃ¼hrer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel